(August 23, 2009 at 8:15 pm)Jon Paul Wrote:(August 23, 2009 at 7:18 pm)EvidenceVsDelusion Wrote: How do your arguments imply Christ as the son of God/God in human form...called Christ?Wow. Are you intentionally ignoring what I am saying? I mean, you're not illiterate:Quote:It has everything to do with Christianity. It has nothing to do with Christs divinity (......) but a lot to do with the ontology of God as seen from the orthodox Christians perspective, and therefore indirectly a lot to do with Christ. Again, you are conflating separate issues as a distraction.As to the rest: you are just repeating, ad infinitum. I have already answered the very questions and request you have asked; this is a kindergarten and I can't spend any more energy or time on it.
And if you can't spend more time and energy on it as you've said before...why have you been continuing, you gonna stop now or not?
The point is that...how does that imply Christ? You're just saying that the arguments imply Christ...well if they're said to be Christian arguments that doesn't make them Christian unless they argue for Christ, obviously they don't explicitly as you say too of course...but where do they imply it? Oh you just say the argument implies it because it's a Christian argument or whatever....
In those arguments I haven't seen any implication that makes Christ valid in any way.
EvD
